ORDER N.K. Jain, J. 1. Applicant above named being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.6.1994 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Narsingarh, in Cr. Appeal No. 14/94 confirming the judgment of conviction Under Section 215 IPG and sentence of 1 year RI with fine Rs. 4,000/- passed by the J.M.F.C. Narsingarh in Cr. Case No. 49/87, has filed this revision Under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution in the trial Court was that on 15.1.1987, three buffaloes belonging to Biharilal had strayed from the jungle where they had been taken for grazing along with other cattle; that after 2/3 days applicant-accused Jaswantsingh met Biharilal and his brother Mangmal and offered to trace the buffaloes on payment of Rs. 3,000/-; that the matter was ultimately settled for Rs. 1,400/- and that in the following morning the accused returned three buffaloes to the complainant after taking Rs. 1,400/-from him. A report of the Incident was lodged by Biharilal with the Police on 20.1.1987 on the basis of which a case Under Section s. 379 & 215 IPC was registered and the investigation followed. 3. The trial Court framed charge only Under Section 215 IPC against the accused-applicant and after trial convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The conviction and sentence were maintained in appeal by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide judgment impugned. 4. I have heard Shri R.C. Chhazed, learned Counsel for applicant and Shri A. Upadhyay, PL for Respondent-State. 5. In order to constitute an offence Under Section 215 IPC it must be shown among other things, that the owner of the property in question has been deprived of it by an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, the only evidence which the prosecution could adduce on the point is that the father of the complainant namely Gangaram had taken his cattle to jungle for grazing and on return it was found that three buffaloes were missing. What could be shown only is this that the three buffaloes had strayed from the jungle where they had been taken for grazing along with other cattle. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the buffaloes were stolen or that the accused-applicant having otherwise found the buffaloes had misappropriated them. What could be shown only is this that the three buffaloes had strayed from the jungle where they had been taken for grazing along with other cattle. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the buffaloes were stolen or that the accused-applicant having otherwise found the buffaloes had misappropriated them. From the mere fact that the accused had discovered the buffaloes on taking some gratification could not and did not show that some person had committed any offence in respect of them, it is not impossible that the buffaloes which had strayed from the judge failed to return to their owner in the ordinary course and the applicant laving spotted them helped the complainant in recovering those cattle and in turn received some gratification. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court has not framed any charge Under Section 379 IPC against the applicant. Obviously the Court was not satisfied as to the commission of the offence of theft or any other offence concerning the buffaloes. 6. Under similar fact situation, this Court in Karansingh (AIR 1953 M.B. 191) has held that no offence Under Section , 215 IPC is made out. 7. Normally this Court will not in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction interfere with the concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the two Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record. However, in the instant case the prosecution evidence taken on its face value does not disclose that the owner of the buffaloes was deprived of them by an offence punishable under the Code. That being so, no conviction Under Section 215 IPC could be recorded against the applicant-accused. 8. In the result I allow this revision, set-aside applicant's conviction and sentence Under Section 215 IPC and acquit him of the same.